ZenSilk Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 What do you guys think about James' Lovelock's theory about Earth being a super-organism that relies as much on it's living inhabitants as we do on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeft Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 I believe in Opposites. Opposites are what explain things to me sometimes. So for the theory that there is "no" opposing factor with the idea that we need the earth as much as earth needs us is against my opposites theory. Thus I find this man to be thinking logically like a philosopher should, however isn't considering certain aspects which makes his theory flawed.However after reading alot of information on wikipedia. It makes more sense. Perhaps non-opposites plays a factor here. I need to smoke now. lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZenSilk Posted November 7, 2007 Author Share Posted November 7, 2007 The books he wrote are great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estariol Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 It's an understandable theory if you take it figuratively. He's not saying that the earth is actually an organism. He just saying that the feedback mechanisms and the way the biosphere reacts to problems is similar to the way an organism would react. It's metaphorical. That, however, doesn't diminish the fact that it's probably a pretty accurate predicition of the Earth's 'reactions' to human projects that harm her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now